DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.44944#0459
PONS AEMILIUS
397
lxix. 23 ; CIL vi. 973 ; Not. app. ; Pol. Silv. 545). It is represented on
a bronze medallion of Hadrian which is accepted as genuine by
Gnecchi (Med. ii. 42. 4). Besides this official name the bridge was
called pons Hadriani (Hist. Aug. Hadr. 19 ; Prud. Peristeph. xii. 61 ;
Mirab. 11 ; Pol. Silv. 545 ; Ordo Bened. pass.), and in the Middle
Ages Pons S. Petri (Anon. Magi. 158 ; Eins. pass. ; Jord. i. 1. 416).
It had three main arches 18.39 metres in diameter, with three smaller
arches on the left, 3, 3.5 and 7.59 metres in diameter respectively, and
two on the right, 7.59 and 3.75 in diameter. From the central part,
over the main arches, the bridge sloped down at an angle of 150, and
the approach on the left side was by a long ramp. The total width was
10.95 metres, and the material travertine with peperino between the
arches. The inscription (CIL vi. 973) was seen, probably on the parapet,1
in 1375 (Mitt. 1893, 321-323), so that apparently this bridge suffered no
great injury until December 1450, when the parapet was broken by the
throngs of pilgrims, and restored by Nicholas V. In 1527 the statues
of S. Peter and S. Paul were erected by Clement VII, and in 1669-71
Clement IX placed on the parapet the famous statues representing
angels (Mem. A.P. i. 1. 224). Two of the arches on the left side had
become covered up, but the structure remained intact until the building
of the present embankment in 1892 necessitated the reconstruction of
the ends of the bridge, so that only the three central arches are now
standing.
(For description and plans of the original bridge and an account of
the changes and discoveries in 1892, see NS 1892, 231-233 ; 412-428 ;
BC 1888, 129-130; 1893, 14-26; Mitt. 1893, 321-323; LR 22-24;
JRS 1925, 75-98.)
Pons Aemilius : the official name (hemerol. Amit. Vail. Allif. ad Kai. Sept.,
CIL i2. pp. 217, 240, 244 ; Not. app. ; Pol. Silv. 545 ; Hist. Aug. Elag. 17)
of the first stone bridge across the Tiber, said to have been built
ΰτ’ Αιμίλιου ταμιβυοντος (Plut. Numa 9). A comparison of the citations
just made with other passages (Ov. Fast. vi. 477-478; Serv. Aen. viii. 646 ;
Aethicus, Cosmog. 28 (ed. Riese 83) ) indicates that this bridge was close
to the pons Sublicius and crossed the river from the forum Boarium
(cf. CIL i2. p. 325). According to Livy (xl. 51. 4) M. Fulvius Nobilior
when censor in 179 b.c. contracted (undoubtedly with his colleague
M. Aemilius Lepidus) for the placing of ‘ pilas pontis in Tiberi,’ and
P. Scipio Africanus and L. Minucius, the censors of 142 b.c., built arches
(Jornices) on these piers. This statement is now generally believed to
refer to the pons Aemilius, and Plutarch’s attribution of the building
of the bridge to a quaestor, Aemilius, is interpreted as a mistake or on
the hypothesis that the fornices of 142 were of wood and that the stone
1 Mr. S. R. Pierce informs me that he has noticed a few letters of a large inscription on the
upstream side, in the archivolt moulding of the central arch. All that could be read was
n (?)... LI.
397
lxix. 23 ; CIL vi. 973 ; Not. app. ; Pol. Silv. 545). It is represented on
a bronze medallion of Hadrian which is accepted as genuine by
Gnecchi (Med. ii. 42. 4). Besides this official name the bridge was
called pons Hadriani (Hist. Aug. Hadr. 19 ; Prud. Peristeph. xii. 61 ;
Mirab. 11 ; Pol. Silv. 545 ; Ordo Bened. pass.), and in the Middle
Ages Pons S. Petri (Anon. Magi. 158 ; Eins. pass. ; Jord. i. 1. 416).
It had three main arches 18.39 metres in diameter, with three smaller
arches on the left, 3, 3.5 and 7.59 metres in diameter respectively, and
two on the right, 7.59 and 3.75 in diameter. From the central part,
over the main arches, the bridge sloped down at an angle of 150, and
the approach on the left side was by a long ramp. The total width was
10.95 metres, and the material travertine with peperino between the
arches. The inscription (CIL vi. 973) was seen, probably on the parapet,1
in 1375 (Mitt. 1893, 321-323), so that apparently this bridge suffered no
great injury until December 1450, when the parapet was broken by the
throngs of pilgrims, and restored by Nicholas V. In 1527 the statues
of S. Peter and S. Paul were erected by Clement VII, and in 1669-71
Clement IX placed on the parapet the famous statues representing
angels (Mem. A.P. i. 1. 224). Two of the arches on the left side had
become covered up, but the structure remained intact until the building
of the present embankment in 1892 necessitated the reconstruction of
the ends of the bridge, so that only the three central arches are now
standing.
(For description and plans of the original bridge and an account of
the changes and discoveries in 1892, see NS 1892, 231-233 ; 412-428 ;
BC 1888, 129-130; 1893, 14-26; Mitt. 1893, 321-323; LR 22-24;
JRS 1925, 75-98.)
Pons Aemilius : the official name (hemerol. Amit. Vail. Allif. ad Kai. Sept.,
CIL i2. pp. 217, 240, 244 ; Not. app. ; Pol. Silv. 545 ; Hist. Aug. Elag. 17)
of the first stone bridge across the Tiber, said to have been built
ΰτ’ Αιμίλιου ταμιβυοντος (Plut. Numa 9). A comparison of the citations
just made with other passages (Ov. Fast. vi. 477-478; Serv. Aen. viii. 646 ;
Aethicus, Cosmog. 28 (ed. Riese 83) ) indicates that this bridge was close
to the pons Sublicius and crossed the river from the forum Boarium
(cf. CIL i2. p. 325). According to Livy (xl. 51. 4) M. Fulvius Nobilior
when censor in 179 b.c. contracted (undoubtedly with his colleague
M. Aemilius Lepidus) for the placing of ‘ pilas pontis in Tiberi,’ and
P. Scipio Africanus and L. Minucius, the censors of 142 b.c., built arches
(Jornices) on these piers. This statement is now generally believed to
refer to the pons Aemilius, and Plutarch’s attribution of the building
of the bridge to a quaestor, Aemilius, is interpreted as a mistake or on
the hypothesis that the fornices of 142 were of wood and that the stone
1 Mr. S. R. Pierce informs me that he has noticed a few letters of a large inscription on the
upstream side, in the archivolt moulding of the central arch. All that could be read was
n (?)... LI.